W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > October 2002

RE: Stop the Choreography Definition insanity!

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:09:35 -0600
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E4043AEF1C@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org



> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 3:29 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Stop the Choreography Definition insanity!
> 

> 
> 2.  We need actual discussion of REQUIREMENTS, with proposed 
> suggestions.

One thing that I *think* the discussion has pointed to is a need to
disentangle the public/declarative/interface definition of a choreography
from the language used to implement it.  Would you disagree?  Does the W3C
choreography language need to cover both the declaration and execution
aspects?

> 
> 4. if this group decides that it 
> wants to re-invent choregraphy languages from ground up with n inputs, it
will 
> be a total waste of time.  Simply put, a number of companies are not
prepared 
> to go through the reinvent the wheel exercise again.  

Are you suggesting that one of the input choreography languages is more or
less done (well, at least as "done" as WSDL 1.1 was when submitted to the
W3C) and the new WG should be chartered to profile and polish it?   Or in
the context of the previous question, maybe we should take either the
intersection or union of the requirements covered by WSCI and BPEL, and add
some requirements that the new WG more cleanly separate the interface
declaration from the execution language?

Personally, I thought the problem was that there were a bunch of wobbly
wheels that have been invented, and that the W3C WS Choreography WG was
needed to invent a simple but steady wheel based on what we've learned from
the previous efforts :-)
Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 17:15:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:09 GMT